Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-07-2010, 09:56 PM   #1
Senior Member
Ben Hunt's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sydney
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 146
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 a worthy upgrade from the DA 16-45mm f4?

Hey everyone,

I've got the DA 16-45 and i love and adore it. Nice and sharp, well built and solid, quick shift, no HSM issues :P but one thing is bugging me about it and that is sometimes an f2.8 would be nice.

currently i'm looking at getting the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 but i'm not sure if it's going to be a worthy upgrade. I would like a 2.8 for low light but i don't want to double up on lense and it would be verry had for me to part with my DA 16-45.

perhaps someone out there can shed some light on this for me (no pun intended)

Should i grab a 2.8, keep the DA or look for something else?

thanks in advance for all your help!

Have a good one!!

04-07-2010, 10:05 PM   #2
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,695
You're not going to really notice anything depending on what kind of photography you do. I'm curious though to which version of the 17-50mm you're looking for. There's the old version (I don't think that has an HSM type motor) and there's the new VC version (which might). Otherwise, it's basically just trading lenses and getting an extra stop of light for an extra $100 or so.
04-07-2010, 10:13 PM   #3
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 167
if you really need that 2.8 , go for it. but if you don't, then just keep the 1645, the 17-50 makes the image yellow.
04-07-2010, 10:15 PM   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 387
Dp you find yourself using the quickshift at all? If yes, I'd keep the 16-45mm. Perhaps you would be interested in trying out a fast prime lens (the FA50/1.4 for instance)?

04-07-2010, 10:25 PM   #5
Senior Member
Ben Hunt's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sydney
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 146
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by systemA Quote
Dp you find yourself using the quickshift at all? If yes, I'd keep the 16-45mm. Perhaps you would be interested in trying out a fast prime lens (the FA50/1.4 for instance)?
Yea i do find myself using the quick shift alot, my next thought was to fill the void with some fast primes, like the FA 50mm f1.7 or 40mm 2.8 Limited
04-07-2010, 10:40 PM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,549
There is a fair amount of difference in speed between F4 & F2.8. The Pentax equivalent is huge and heavy.

I'm hoping to get this lens very soon.

Find reviews here:

FM Reviews - AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]
04-07-2010, 10:49 PM   #7
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Santa Fe, NM
Posts: 7,443
It's my everyday do-everything lens. Love it to death.
04-07-2010, 11:05 PM   #8
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,104
As people have mentioned, if you need the f/2.8 speed, yes, by all means get it. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is an excellent lens. If I needed that range and speed that would be the lens I'd go for.

04-07-2010, 11:08 PM   #9
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,695
QuoteOriginally posted by phzy2003 Quote
if you really need that 2.8 , go for it. but if you don't, then just keep the 1645, the 17-50 makes the image yellow.
That's odd, I've never heard of the 17-50mm giving a yellowish tinge. Well I guess maybe a little bit, but do you have any examples of it really being a problem? I still would prefer the 16-45mm, but I am curious about this.
04-07-2010, 11:33 PM   #10
Senior Member
Ben Hunt's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sydney
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 146
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jct us101 Quote
That's odd, I've never heard of the 17-50mm giving a yellowish tinge. Well I guess maybe a little bit, but do you have any examples of it really being a problem? I still would prefer the 16-45mm, but I am curious about this.
Same here, very curious about this too
04-07-2010, 11:38 PM   #11
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 387
Only one solution...different days, different lenses
04-08-2010, 01:30 AM   #12
Veteran Member
Pentaxie's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kuala Lumpur Malaysia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 429
Like many fellow friends mentioned here, if you need the f2.8 for low light activity, go for it. Otherwise save your money and stick with the 16-45.

Cheers.
04-08-2010, 01:45 AM   #13
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
For lowlight, another option is to get a k-x. it's almost a two stop improvement from K20d. When you need even more speed, get a prime.

Just another thought to consider Of course the 17-50/2.8 is a great lens, but as you said, you'd prefer not to double up.

And DA colors is very different from Tamron colors. I still find DA colors nicer but tamron colors are not bad at all...
04-08-2010, 07:31 AM   #14
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
phzy2003: if you really need that 2.8 , go for it. but if you don't, then just keep the 1645, the 17-50 makes the image yellow.
I have shot thousands of images with my Tamron 17-50; no idea what you mean by a "yellow image." You need to explain this one a little more--perhaps post some images for us.

For a lens in this range (17-50) and at this speed (f 2.8) it would be tough to beat the Tamron--just an amazing lens. Sure, colors differ from lens to lens a bit, tailoring colors in PPing is a simple thing.
04-08-2010, 10:14 AM   #15
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 79
i am about to take the plunge, and buy the tamron 17-50 f2.8. this thread greatly boosts my confidence in it.

for a wide angle fast shot, i can't seem to find anything better. there doesnt seem to be anything faster at 17mm than f2.8, is there?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
da, da 16-45mm, f2.8, k-mount, light, pentax lens, slr lens, tamron, tamron 17-50mm f2.8
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Da 16-45mm f/4.0 ED AL vs Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro vs Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Deni Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 32 01-14-2010 11:13 PM
Upgrade to Tamron 17-50mm from kit 18-55mm: worth the investment? virgilr Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 09-04-2009 07:33 AM
Pentax 16-45mm vs. Tamron 17-50mm causey Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 05-30-2009 01:56 AM
DA 16-45mm VS Tamron 17-50mm/2.8 robcap13 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 2 03-11-2009 09:44 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:37 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top